The Liberals have a lot to learn from the NDP. Learning how to lose gracefully can be one of those things. NDP has a lot of experience in that. And NDP is going to show them how to get things done being the official opposition and after the next elections both federally and Ontario NDP will also show them how to govern. Watch and learn Liberals

His promise of dollar beer aside, the vast majority of Ontarians will be paying a steeper cost across every aspect of their lives: in more crowded classrooms and hospitals, in diminished social assistance, in less available public transit and housing, in more aggressive policing of racialized communities, and in an assault on the environment. “Everything’s going out for bid”: that’s Ford giving notice about a privatization spree. On the immediate chopping block appear to be the new sex-ed curriculum, supervised-injection sites, and the minimum wage increase — all of which will make Ontarians less safe, healthy and secure. So much for a “government for the people.”

At every turn, Ford will have to be reminded that this mandate for austerity was never advertised and barely endorsed: the hundred percent of legislative power he will enjoy is based, in our unreformed electoral system, on merely 40 percent of actual voters and 23 percent of eligible ones.

As Ontarians search for models for their resistance, they have inspiring and powerful precedents in their own recent history. When Tory premier Mike Harris came to power in 1995 – unleashing the kind of multi-billion dollar cuts to vital programs and services that we can expect under Ford – a grassroots coalition kickstarted protests as soon as he took office.

They built up toward Days of Action – one-day, one-city general strikes which spread across the province. Thousands spilled out of their workplaces and marched in the streets, including 350,000 people in Toronto. The movement sunk the popularity of Harris and forced him to back off certain policies. But when the labour movement’s official leadership undermined its momentum and the protests ended, his popularity rebounded.

It will take nothing less than this sort of movement – and the extensive education and face-to-face organizing required to build it – to precipitate a crisis for Ford. He won the election because he was able to connect with people angry and despairing at an economic order rigged against their interests. Such a mass movement can clarify that his agenda won’t help them — it will only compound their pain.

Yes, that Ford got his mandate from only 23% of eligible voters is indeed tragic.

This constant attack on governments and other institutions by the right-wing (it's 24/7 on CKNW, and probably the most listened to radio station in Vancouver/BC) which discourages people from voting, pays off in spades for people like Doug Ford.

Take a minute and read your post -- if you need a clue it would be somewhere between your first and your last letter you typed. It was full of assumptions that are only a figment of Liberal entitlement.

The whole pile of shit about the NDP being at fault becuase the Liberals lost might be your first clue.

Oh and by the way that was the furthest from a series of "facts."

Also you quoted some of the explanation.

Notalib writes:

LOL - so you got nothing then, eh? Nothing but continued attacks.

First of all with respect to your "whole pile of shit" - You will note I at no time stated that the NDP is at fault for a Liberal loss to Ford. Rather, I said, in all my life I have never seen a better opportunity for the NDP to win an election in Ontario. But of course they failed at that with the mediocrity they have been toting as modern social democracy. Thereby allowing a clown like Ford to pick up the populist mantle and fight for the little guy. So at best you might spin that I inferred the NDP is complicit in the success of the Ford Campaign. Note, no mention of liberals at all. The NDP had their best chance ever, blew it, handed it to Ford.

Here is a little break down of the facts vs "Liberal entitlement" you claim.

Fact: Howarth has lost three consecutive elections. Most people realize that is a losing streak, but whatever. Moreover, it's certainly not reason to entrench her leadership

Fact: Layton and Howarth alike may have increased their percentage of the vote, but as I said, it only led to con governments. That seems a pattern. Clearly one you are ok with, but it does not make it any less of a fact.

Fact: The cons rely on a strong NDP to win. This is a fact with abundant evidence including con strategists like Boesenkool and others like Flanagan who go on TV and say it.

Fact: Howarth stood up after losing on election night and celebrated "change for the better." Her rhetoric was very clearly in support of the New Ford Nation that will now engulf Ontario politics and Howarth be nothing but a bystander (like you yourself admit in this thread.)

Fact: Being a rump of an opposition in a super majority like Ford's means they are officially useless as, again, you yourself state further back in the thread. Further, as I stated, the NDP would be better of with the balance of power. That is just a fact dude, no matter who the government is.

Just so you know, I have never belonged to any party other than the NDP. But also understand I have not been a serious part of the NDP since Layton, who I originally supported, due to the fact that, unlike many here, I would rather do the bidding of conservatives from inside their party than from within the NDP. But that will never happen because I do not support conservative politics even though I am a populist. Sadly, there is just no home for progressive folks like me as the NDP is a lost cause, the Liberals, as always largely dysfucntional as a progressive party and the NEO cons new penchant to forward populist politics ala Trump is so repulsive it is to puke.

Fact: Being a rump of an opposition in a super majority like Ford's means they are officially useless as, again, you yourself state further back in the thread.

I've seen some variant of this argument dozens of times here since the election, and I disagree.

Let's get the obvious out of the way first: Yes, as official opposition, the ONDP can't pass bills on its own, doesn't have the votes to defeat anything Ford wants to pass, has no say in cabinet, and so forth. That's what it means to be in opposition. But being the official opposition isn't "useless" unless you're also of the opinion that Parliament is useless. There are two broad reasons why, one strategic, one practical.

Strategically, the ONDP is now the only real voice of opposition to Doug Ford. It appoints the vice-chairs of committees, it grills the government in Question Period, and in the press, despite the Liberals being grandfathered into coverage, it'll be Horwath who sets the tone of opposition and defines the terms of the debate. With the Liberals' loss of official party status, the NDP will be able to move into the same position it's held in the Prairies for years now, as the major-party alternative. Assuming Ford's not on a kamikaze run, an NDP leading in the polls will have an occasional effect on his governance.

As for the practical reason, two words: constituent service. I worked in an NDP MP's office while we were official opposition. I know that the consensus now is that those years were wasted, because we elected Mulcair and Mulcair didn't lead us to government in 2015. We certainly didn't stop Harper from damaging the country. But on an individual basis, we helped countless constituents with their immigration and refugee files (admittedly, not something the ONDP can really do), helped them access services, pointed them in the direction of community resources, and not only introduced the NDP to many individual voters, but believe it or not, made a real difference in many people's lives.

Nobody goes into politics to be in the opposition, of course. And I'm not denying that Ford's going to make Ontario suffer. But the opposition is not "useless", and 40 NDP MPPs means 80 teams of staffers (constituency and Queens Park) working on constituent files, a research budget, media access, and all kinds of tools the ONDP didn't have before. One look at the state of the federal NDP now vs. in 2015 is all it takes to remember that, yes, being the official opposition matters, and is vastly preferable to being a third party.

Take a minute and read your post -- if you need a clue it would be somewhere between your first and your last letter you typed. It was full of assumptions that are only a figment of Liberal entitlement.

The whole pile of shit about the NDP being at fault becuase the Liberals lost might be your first clue.

Oh and by the way that was the furthest from a series of "facts."

Also you quoted some of the explanation.

Notalib writes:

LOL - so you got nothing then, eh? Nothing but continued attacks.

First of all with respect to your "whole pile of shit" - You will note I at no time stated that the NDP is at fault for a Liberal loss to Ford. Rather, I said, in all my life I have never seen a better opportunity for the NDP to win an election in Ontario. But of course they failed at that with the mediocrity they have been toting as modern social democracy. Thereby allowing a clown like Ford to pick up the populist mantle and fight for the little guy. So at best you might spin that I inferred the NDP is complicit in the success of the Ford Campaign. Note, no mention of liberals at all. The NDP had their best chance ever, blew it, handed it to Ford.

Here is a little break down of the facts vs "Liberal entitlement" you claim.

Fact: Howarth has lost three consecutive elections. Most people realize that is a losing streak, but whatever. Moreover, it's certainly not reason to entrench her leadership

Fact: Layton and Howarth alike may have increased their percentage of the vote, but as I said, it only led to con governments. That seems a pattern. Clearly one you are ok with, but it does not make it any less of a fact.

Fact: The cons rely on a strong NDP to win. This is a fact with abundant evidence including con strategists like Boesenkool and others like Flanagan who go on TV and say it.

Fact: Howarth stood up after losing on election night and celebrated "change for the better." Her rhetoric was very clearly in support of the New Ford Nation that will now engulf Ontario politics and Howarth be nothing but a bystander (like you yourself admit in this thread.)

Fact: Being a rump of an opposition in a super majority like Ford's means they are officially useless as, again, you yourself state further back in the thread. Further, as I stated, the NDP would be better of with the balance of power. That is just a fact dude, no matter who the government is.

Just so you know, I have never belonged to any party other than the NDP. But also understand I have not been a serious part of the NDP since Layton, who I originally supported, due to the fact that, unlike many here, I would rather do the bidding of conservatives from inside their party than from within the NDP. But that will never happen because I do not support conservative politics even though I am a populist. Sadly, there is just no home for progressive folks like me as the NDP is a lost cause, the Liberals, as always largely dysfucntional as a progressive party and the NEO cons new penchant to forward populist politics ala Trump is so repulsive it is to puke.

The reason sometimes I just insult a post is because it is so patently ridiculous that it is obvious what is wrong with it but still should not be left to stand. It does not mean that it cannt be disected.

So here are specific answers to your so-called facts:

#1 those who do not recognize that a party coming from third is not expected to win in a single election -- especially coming from a position of a ;loss of party status -- would not be confused with NDP supporters. Your comments on the losing streak make you look exactly like a Liberal despite your protest to the contrary. In her last election the growth for Horwath would neve be considered by a New Democrat supporter to be a reason for a leadership change.

#2 This second bogus fact ignores the other sides of the coin: The NDP compete most strongly against Liberals. When they are weak the NDP has the greatest opening. When the Liberals are weak both other parties are stronger. Only a clueless entitled Liberal or someone extremely dense when it comes to political analysis cannot understand this. Are you the dense one instead of the clueless? also when the Liberals are screwed and weak, there is nothing to say that the increase in NDP support is at any cost of potential for them. The NDP gain is most often a result rather than a cause of Liberal loss. this is quite provable since those looking at the Liberal loss without Liberal red sunglasses notice that the cause of Liberal defeat traces back to something they did. To suggest that I am ok with Conservatives winning is an absolute lie and deserving of any insult I throw in your direction.

#3 Both the Cons and the NDP rely on Liberal weakness. Their opportunities come at the same time. Your suggestion that the NDP is the cause of Liberal weakness makes you a lying Liberal or a clueless political observer. In any case you have the Liberal bias whether you took it on purpose or by accident. I think accidents are rare.

#4 Horwath did celebrate change for the NDP and it was and they worked hard for it. This is not an endorsement of everything and if you listen to the speech and not do a bullshit cherrypicking job you would know that. But that makes you look like a Liberal.

#5 That the NDP would be better with balance of power than without is nothing I contradicted even iof you call me Dude in pretending otherwise. It just means that I get to say you are full of shit again.

As for your personal statement -- I do not believe any of it as it is likely cherry picked just like the bullshit facts you listed. But if I had to speculate I would suspect that you once in ancient history was an NDP member and have long been a Liberal supporter without membership. After all why the hell would you define yourself as Notalib if in fact you really were not a Liberal supporter. Most define themselves by what they are not what they are not. and those that define themselves by what they are not usually lie -- either to themselves or others.

So why should I care if you are so messed up that you think you are not a Liberal when you spout their propaganda and talking points or if you really know you are a Liberal and are just lying? Why should anyone care at all?

Here, you are what you say. Yous posts are Liberal propaganda whetehr you know it or not. That makes you a Liberal. Deal with it or chage your posts. But here you are what your comments are not what you pretend not to be but behave exactly like.

Fact: Being a rump of an opposition in a super majority like Ford's means they are officially useless as, again, you yourself state further back in the thread.

I've seen some variant of this argument dozens of times here since the election, and I disagree.

Let's get the obvious out of the way first: Yes, as official opposition, the ONDP can't pass bills on its own, doesn't have the votes to defeat anything Ford wants to pass, has no say in cabinet, and so forth. That's what it means to be in opposition. But being the official opposition isn't "useless" unless you're also of the opinion that Parliament is useless. There are two broad reasons why, one strategic, one practical.

Strategically, the ONDP is now the only real voice of opposition to Doug Ford. It appoints the vice-chairs of committees, it grills the government in Question Period, and in the press, despite the Liberals being grandfathered into coverage, it'll be Horwath who sets the tone of opposition and defines the terms of the debate. With the Liberals' loss of official party status, the NDP will be able to move into the same position it's held in the Prairies for years now, as the major-party alternative. Assuming Ford's not on a kamikaze run, an NDP leading in the polls will have an occasional effect on his governance.

As for the practical reason, two words: constituent service. I worked in an NDP MP's office while we were official opposition. I know that the consensus now is that those years were wasted, because we elected Mulcair and Mulcair didn't lead us to government in 2015. We certainly didn't stop Harper from damaging the country. But on an individual basis, we helped countless constituents with their immigration and refugee files (admittedly, not something the ONDP can really do), helped them access services, pointed them in the direction of community resources, and not only introduced the NDP to many individual voters, but believe it or not, made a real difference in many people's lives.

Nobody goes into politics to be in the opposition, of course. And I'm not denying that Ford's going to make Ontario suffer. But the opposition is not "useless", and 40 NDP MPPs means 80 teams of staffers (constituency and Queens Park) working on constituent files, a research budget, media access, and all kinds of tools the ONDP didn't have before. One look at the state of the federal NDP now vs. in 2015 is all it takes to remember that, yes, being the official opposition matters, and is vastly preferable to being a third party.

I agree with this -- he had taken my words out of context as I was replying to someone who said that Horwath could stop Ford and of course they cannot do that. Also at the start oppositions have less power becuase they are too close to the vote. But over time if they become more popular than the government they can have a lot of power even as a minority to a majority.

First of all with respect to your "whole pile of shit" - You will note I at no time stated that the NDP is at fault for a Liberal loss to Ford.

Here Notalib.

Quote:

Both examples given of Layton and Howarth "steadily increasing the vote" only led to conservative governments.

One of the great things about babble is that if you post ridiculous shit like this, you WILL get called on it.

NotLib writes:

Called out on what? Its a statement of fact. At no time do I claim conservative victories are the fault of the NDP yet people here scream every three posts that his victory was the faulf of the Liberals. Do you people not see how ridiculous that is? I don't say the words, only state fact, but get "called out" yet those who do say the words are not?

Enjoy the Ford nation and the delusion that the NDP will affect anything or is a government in waiting.

Thanks cco I really appreciate your on the money comments. And having a well run constituency office gives the MPP a leg up on the next election campaign.

cco wrote:

Notalib wrote:

Fact: Being a rump of an opposition in a super majority like Ford's means they are officially useless as, again, you yourself state further back in the thread.

I've seen some variant of this argument dozens of times here since the election, and I disagree.

Let's get the obvious out of the way first: Yes, as official opposition, the ONDP can't pass bills on its own, doesn't have the votes to defeat anything Ford wants to pass, has no say in cabinet, and so forth. That's what it means to be in opposition. But being the official opposition isn't "useless" unless you're also of the opinion that Parliament is useless. There are two broad reasons why, one strategic, one practical.

Strategically, the ONDP is now the only real voice of opposition to Doug Ford. It appoints the vice-chairs of committees, it grills the government in Question Period, and in the press, despite the Liberals being grandfathered into coverage, it'll be Horwath who sets the tone of opposition and defines the terms of the debate. With the Liberals' loss of official party status, the NDP will be able to move into the same position it's held in the Prairies for years now, as the major-party alternative. Assuming Ford's not on a kamikaze run, an NDP leading in the polls will have an occasional effect on his governance.

As for the practical reason, two words: constituent service. I worked in an NDP MP's office while we were official opposition. I know that the consensus now is that those years were wasted, because we elected Mulcair and Mulcair didn't lead us to government in 2015. We certainly didn't stop Harper from damaging the country. But on an individual basis, we helped countless constituents with their immigration and refugee files (admittedly, not something the ONDP can really do), helped them access services, pointed them in the direction of community resources, and not only introduced the NDP to many individual voters, but believe it or not, made a real difference in many people's lives.

Nobody goes into politics to be in the opposition, of course. And I'm not denying that Ford's going to make Ontario suffer. But the opposition is not "useless", and 40 NDP MPPs means 80 teams of staffers (constituency and Queens Park) working on constituent files, a research budget, media access, and all kinds of tools the ONDP didn't have before. One look at the state of the federal NDP now vs. in 2015 is all it takes to remember that, yes, being the official opposition matters, and is vastly preferable to being a third party.

Squabble Squabble Squabble! Meanwhile the Right is laughing all the way to the ballot box. Why not knock on some doors and ask, "Why do you think we are such a bunch of losers?" Maybe the people will tell you.

Squabble Squabble Squabble! Meanwhile the Right is laughing all the way to the ballot box. Why not knock on some doors and ask, "Why do you think we are such a bunch of losers?" Maybe the people will tell you.

They should have a feature on theses boards where one could "like" comments.

Andrea sure as hell was talking about it but Once again Canada’s corporate media has done a disservice to Canadians for not repeatedly slamming Ford during the campaign for his lack of a costed program

Greenpeace said Ontarians may save money on gas but will pay the price in other ways, such as flooded basements from increasingly heavy rainstorms.

If your basement floods it's Doug Fords fault.

But the Liberal government allowed companies to exceed the limit so long as they paid money to the government. Money which "went towards programs, such as new technology" (that seems a bit strange), so really if your basement floods it's Wynnes fault.

Unless the weather patterns will drastically change on 29 June.

Maybe those programs and new technology can go towards building a giant space station which controls dangerous weather, we can call it Dutch Boy.

Once again Canada’s corporate media has done a disservice to Canadians for not repeatedly slamming Ford during the campaign for his lack of a costed program.

But how much of difference would that have made, really? If you're someone who thinks(for example) that children are going to burn in hell because of the Ontario sex-ed curriculum, are you likely to awitch to the NDP just because the main anti-sex ed party hasn't publically costed their platform?

And, anyway, as someone who was following the Ontario election only casually, I had no trouble finding out about the PC's lacuna in the matter of costing. I suspect that most PC voters who saw headlines like the ones below just muttered something like "Yeah, let's talk about costing. The Liberals and NDP are gonna cost us an arm and a leg!!"

That would mean that anyone who is not a multi-millionaire would be invisible to him, and to his policies. If he is the little guy, then most of us do not even exist to him.

Maybe. On the other hand, there do seem to be a significant number of people with less money than Doug Ford who are willing to vote for him, thus at least tacitly endorsing his claim to speak for "the little guy".

S in O writes: Would you like me to post a definition of the word "expect."? Would that help you understand the statement better?

Notalib responds: No need for that, I have the Google. ;)

And I think you do too... so when one says " those who do not recognize that a party coming from third is not expected to win in a single election," they seem unaware that the leader has been around for three elections, and its been since 95 that they were in power. All this information is at the Google. But, math is hard, I get it, however I think that no matter how you look at it, your notion about a single election is entirely erroneous.

Anyway I have no desire to continue in this thread and I do honestly wish you guys luck. Mostly cuz your gonna need it, especially in Quebec, 11,000 less votes in the latest by-election.... ouch..... looks good for the cons though, so......

During the campaign, Ford said he would jumpstart mining the mineral-rich James Bay Lowlands about 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay – even if it meant driving the bulldozer himself.

But he needs nine First Nations that hold jurisdiction over the area to sign on to the project.

quote:

The now-defeated Liberal government previously tried to negotiate an agreement with all nine First Nations, but only managed to cut a deal with three of them.

Just before the election, Neskantaga and Eabametoong First Nations denounced outgoing premier Kathleen Wynne’s “aggressive process to build roads” through the Ring of Fire and called for a reset on the project.

“The development of our homelands is about more than any one mine or road, it’s about the potential transformation of our lands and way of life-forever,” said Eabametoong First Nation Chief Elizabeth Atlookan in a press release. “These discussions are serious and must occur in ways that recognize our rights and involve all our communities, not the closed door approach we’ve seen over the past couple of years.”

RoseAnne Archibald, who’s competing against Day and Six Nations of the Grand River Chief Ava Hill for Ontario regional chief, said First Nations are worried about Ford’s eagerness to mine the Ring of Fire.

“The reality is, you cannot access those resources without the consent of those First Nations that will be directly impacted by the Ring of Fire,” she said. “That’s the bottom line.”

Archibald said Ford has to acknowledge that there’s a “new order” of how to deal with First Nations, as highlighted in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Doug's supporters can't get to the CostClub, or the PriceCo, on a bicycle! They might get there, sure. But how will they get home with all those cases of bottled water? They NEED vehicles! And they need them to be cheap! And fuck any "bike lanes" that slow a good honest citizen down who's just trying to get to Walmart for the cheap water that their family LITERALLY, and MEDICALLY needs to survive!!!

S in O writes: Would you like me to post a definition of the word "expect."? Would that help you understand the statement better?

Notalib responds: No need for that, I have the Google. ;)

And I think you do too... so when one says " those who do not recognize that a party coming from third is not expected to win in a single election," they seem unaware that the leader has been around for three elections, and its been since 95 that they were in power. All this information is at the Google. But, math is hard, I get it, however I think that no matter how you look at it, your notion about a single election is entirely erroneous.

Anyway I have no desire to continue in this thread and I do honestly wish you guys luck. Mostly cuz your gonna need it, especially in Quebec, 11,000 less votes in the latest by-election.... ouch..... looks good for the cons though, so......

Yeah well I don't respect people who offer to bail on a thread as a way of trying to get the last word in. You do not need to give notice of stopping posting here.

You don't have to be so fucking condescending. I am aware of the history, even the fact that she restored the NDP to party status after a disastrous position the party had been in. I am also aware that a party that has shitloads of money and one of the standard alternating power expects all its leaders to win within a couple elections. I am aware that a third party that has only governed once amid a horrbile recession and typically works with significantly less money and media attention ought to not be judged at the same level of success. Typically only Liberals seem to not get this which is why I have suspected that this is your game.

But sure since you like to use failed Conservative retorts (that one maybe you should google as it was credited as the turning point in Notley winning) maybe I am wrong about you being a Liberal. You sure do not sound like an NDP supporter - or at least one with a clue.

Also your Notley point is a joke really. There is no comparison. In Alberta there was a new party and an implosion of an old party. There was no established opposition alternative anywhere near the government to view for power. Ontario has two parties with the bulk of the money and a historical alternation. You can google that too.

To help you with the whole awareness thing the NDP was down to 10 seats or under for three elections in a row without party status. This was under 10 years ago. Horwath returned the party to party status going from 10 to 17 seats and then 21 and now 40. She ran on a poor platform in the previous election and then fixed that for this one and came close to winning coming from a low position a few weeks ago. She was widely liked and respected as well. She is clearly now an asset to the party.

Your suggestions that she resign are ridiculous in every way and lacking in logic -- unless you see this like a Liberal or Conservative who expect power to alternate between them.

As a voter who will swing between Liberal and NDP depending on who is more likely to win the specific riding or election I'm participating in, I will never understand EITHER the NDP supporter nor the Liberal supporter who wants to do the other party in. Liberals who want to see the NDP fail and NDP who see the Liberals as more evil than the conservative option are self-defeating progressives. Splitting the left is what enables those who defeat progressive policy.

As a voter who will swing between Liberal and NDP depending on who is more likely to win the specific riding or election I'm participating in, I will never understand EITHER the NDP supporter nor the Liberal supporter who wants to do the other party in. Liberals who want to see the NDP fail and NDP who see the Liberals as more evil than the conservative option are self-defeating progressives. Splitting the left is what enables those who defeat progressive policy.

Ok here is the irony. Splitting the left defeats progressive policy. But uniting the left also defeats progressive policy. I explained this before.

When there is only one party left of the Conservatives it will be Liberal in policy even if it is NDP in name. The reason is that parties reflect political context and their supporters. If the Liberals vanished, their supporters would go NDP and make a party that is much more to the centre. If you want a progressive NDP you want the Liberals to take up the members who are less progressive.

If you want an NDP government in more than name then you need a more even split between the three parties and the NDP may win once in a while -- if they occupy a too restricted space they will not get elected.

Interestingly the NDP might influence policy when not getting elected than by having the Liberals disappear and the NDP move to the centre with the new members. In this scenario they become the centre party with no party to the left of them pushing them.

So best option is three-way tie with the NDP winning some times, or balance of power, second best is NDP at least strong enough to make the Liberals sometimes take their policies, worse is and NDP without a Liberal party and lastly a Liberal party without the NDP. The last two are not much different.

****

Another point is that parties should not be hypocrites -- that gets noticed. The NDP provincially should declare support to the Liberals for party status otherwise their position on PR looks like opportunism only. In a PR election the Liberals would have party status -- it is a freak of FPTP that they do not have it now. As I said before, I am fine with them conditioning this on Liberal support for PR but the offer should be made.

Another point is that parties should not be hypocrites -- that gets noticed. The NDP provincially should declare support to the Liberals for party status otherwise their position on PR looks like opportunism only. In a PR election the Liberals would have party status -- it is a freak of FPTP that they do not have it now. As I said before, I am fine with them conditioning this on Liberal support for PR but the offer should be made.

Agreed. Particularly since they're only one short.

It's bad optics for the NDP to be on record as supporting denial of party status to the Liberals. Do they think "progressive" voters will be wooed by this show of partisanship?

It's also bad strategy. It lets Ford look reasonable if he gives it to them. If he doesn't, it gives the Liberals a rallying cry to win the next by-election. Do they think they think the path to winning the next election is winning those Liberal votes that didn't go their way this time? Is that reasonable? Will that help?

It's also poor hindsight. The reason we have Andrea Horwath is because Dalton McGuinty denied the NDP party status and give the NDP a raison d'etre in that 2004 by-election.

I find her to be personally compelling but incredibly, jsut so incredibly tone-deaf. It must be bad advice.